What was to stop the guy from buying clips from someone on the street(because there are millions of high capacity clips already circulating), and him having someone else buy him ammo or buy from a guy on the streets? What is to stop someone from modifying a gun to reload faster? You do not think he reloaded during the shooting? He most certainly did but it was panic mode and no one was going to tackle him and it is rediculous to think it would have happened. Btw when I say streets I do not mean that literally but a general term for streets/friends/relative etc.

Now let me ask you this, why was there no one there with a gun to shoot the guy back? If someone was there with a gun they could have fired back, bulletproof stuff may save you life but you feel the impact unless he had an ironman suit on. Better yet we always hear about how "bad" cops are, why did the officer who caught the guy not shoot him in the head and say he resisted? There is no court on the face on the earth that would ever convict the cop if he had done that.

Restrict the amount of bullets and ammo. A normal citizen doesn't need a whole bunch of ammo.

A guy walks into a movie theater and shoots 50 people. If you decrease the amount of ammo and clips, he wouldn't be able to do that much damage. If you even make it to where the gun doesn't reload really fast, then someone can tackle him.

1 bullet is really all it takes to kill someone. How many in your eyes would be an acceptable amount of ammo? Lots of people shoot guns as activity. A harmless old guy might have a few thousand rounds of ammo, but only use them for target shooting.

What would you restrict? Buying ammunition? Making ammunition? Bullets are quite simple to make, a few tools, and someone can make all the ammo they need. A lot of snipers make their own ammunition to ensure perfection.

Originally Posted by The Black Wolf

On the basis that you just don't! You don't need crates of bullets or hundreds of bullets at one time to protect yourself!

Thats not a basis. How do you know how many bullets someone should have?

Last edited by Kwes; 05-08-2013 at 02:20.

Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.

What was to stop the guy from buying clips from someone on the street(because there are millions of high capacity clips already circulating), and him having someone else buy him ammo or buy from a guy on the streets? What is to stop someone from modifying a gun to reload faster? You do not think he reloaded during the shooting? He most certainly did but it was panic mode and no one was going to tackle him and it is rediculous to think it would have happened. Btw when I say streets I do not mean that literally but a general term for streets/friends/relative etc.

You can't stop that, but you can make it hard on them. Make it so they can't go to walmart, make it so they have to get it from the streets. Just because you can't stop doesn't mean you don't try or you make it harder on them.

And yes, someone would have tackled him. If a guy is busy reloading, there is a chance someone would try to tackle him or knock the gun out of his hand.

Now let me ask you this, why was there no one there with a gun to shoot the guy back? If someone was there with a gun they could have fired back, bulletproof stuff may save you life but you feel the impact unless he had an ironman suit on. Better yet we always hear about how "bad" cops are, why did the officer who caught the guy not shoot him in the head and say he resisted? There is no court on the face on the earth that would ever convict the cop if he had done that.

No one shot him in the back because no one else had a gun in the theater. As for the cop, he was just doing his job. My understanding is, if a cop can, he's going to bring you in alive and less injured as possible.

1 bullet is really all it takes to kill someone. How many in your eyes would be an acceptable amount of ammo? Lots of people shoot guns as activity. A harmless old guy might have a few thousand rounds of ammo, but only use them for target shooting.

What would you restrict? Buying ammunition? Making ammunition? Bullets are quite simple to make, a few tools, and someone can make all the ammo they need. A lot of snipers make their own ammunition to ensure perfection.

Thats not a basis. How do you know how many bullets someone should have?

I would restrict buying ammo and making ammo for ordinary citizens. As for who should get how much, that's easy.

You could easily say, "Okay, for 9 mm guns, you can only have X amount of ammo. For your shotgun, have this amount. For hunting and with deer riles, this amount." The government could easily find a basis. An example of the basis for the deer rifle would be "Each person kills on average this amount of deer or large animals every hunting season."

No one needs thousands of bullets at one point. It's their right to own that amount, but what if their right places someone else in danger? What if someone sick breaks in their house and steals their ammo?

You can't stop that, but you can make it hard on them. Make it so they can't go to walmart, make it so they have to get it from the streets. Just because you can't stop doesn't mean you don't try or you make it harder on them.

And yes, someone would have tackled him. If a guy is busy reloading, there is a chance someone would try to tackle him or knock the gun out of his hand.

No one shot him in the back because no one else had a gun in the theater. As for the cop, he was just doing his job. My understanding is, if a cop can, he's going to bring you in alive and less injured as possible.

You don't say and you want it to be HARDER for people to get guns??? If anything I would make it easier so if the scenario happens again someone would have a gun.

What about people who like to go to shooting ranges? or people who hunt? I mean how does the gov(I assume would be the regulators, no pun intended for the old rap group) know how good or bad I am at hunting?

Regulating just means for people like me who are well stocked, or those that do not have a gun could earn a potential of extra money by buying bullets and selling them on the street for a profit. So you would then have to make privet sales of bullets illegal...I think you can guess where this is going.

No reason for a person to not have tons of ammo sitting around. There's not any legitimate argument to be had for why he should not have such an amount.

Maybe he's holding onto it in the hopes of selling it at a higher price than he bought it (with gun scares as they are, it's possible he'd turn a huge profit), or he shoots regularly, or he's simply "preparing for the worst". Absurd that we are actually talking about restricting ammo.

Discussing rebellions scenarios is tricky because there's a huge difference between a government just outright deciding to control/imprison/harm its people and a civil war where each side feels they're in the right.

Like Rapture said, the most likely scenario is one where our government slowly takes away our freedoms to a breaking point, where a large sect of the population becomes fed up and rebels. The military would likely defend the government in such a case.

Exactly. Honestly, if anyone ever rebelled, it'd be conservatives, come on, you know who you are in this thread I'll have fled to Mexico the next morning. Wait, d'oh, make that a longer drive to Canada instead.

I would restrict buying ammo and making ammo for ordinary citizens. As for who should get how much, that's easy.

You could easily say, "Okay, for 9 mm guns, you can only have X amount of ammo. For your shotgun, have this amount. For hunting and with deer riles, this amount." The government could easily find a basis. An example of the basis for the deer rifle would be "Each person kills on average this amount of deer or large animals every hunting season."

No one needs thousands of bullets at one point. It's their right to own that amount, but what if their right places someone else in danger? What if someone sick breaks in their house and steals their ammo?

The right to own a gun, a knife, a car, a chainsaw, the right to drink and smoke could place others in danger.

Honestly, it would be pretty damned simple to circumvent restricting the amount of ammo someone can buy. Simply stock up over a little time, or give money to others and have them buy for you if you want to stock up quickly.... problem solved.

As far as making it more difficult to reload, they already have guns like that called double barrel shotguns, and if you practice a little you can get pretty good at reloading them quickly. To be honest, why people use assault rifles for close range rather than shotguns with buckshot beats me. If you really want to take a bunch of people out at close range quickly, a shotgun with the right rounds would do the trick.

I would restrict buying ammo and making ammo for ordinary citizens. As for who should get how much, that's easy.

You could easily say, "Okay, for 9 mm guns, you can only have X amount of ammo. For your shotgun, have this amount. For hunting and with deer riles, this amount." The government could easily find a basis. An example of the basis for the deer rifle would be "Each person kills on average this amount of deer or large animals every hunting season."

No one needs thousands of bullets at one point. It's their right to own that amount, but what if their right places someone else in danger? What if someone sick breaks in their house and steals their ammo?

Again, you misunderstand how easy it is to make ammunition. Its as easy as going to a store and buying it.

And unless everyone bought ammo with a credit card, or every store in the country was linked to some network, there is no way they could determine who is buying what.

Also again, why is it that you know who should have what? If its their right to possess the firearm, and as much ammunition as they want, then thats it. And just on a personal note, if someone broke into my house with the intent to steal ammunition, they would not be leaving alive.

Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.

I don't know much about laws and $#@! but really, it makes sense when Sub says that it was a state of emergency.

The bomber was a $#@! but if he was an armed threat to civilians, it would've been bad.

Our freedoms are slowly going to be taken away regardless of the govt. being good or bad, blame that on technology.

Let's see. The government and law enforcement never had warrants to check each and every house, they set curfews throughout the city, they confiscated weapons from civilians they never had a right to confiscate in the first place and generally imposed their will on the populace without regard to the constitution. All this for one person. They brought daily life and commerce to a grinding halt. If this isn't the very definition of martial law then I don't know what is. Substance has no clue as to what he's talking about and he and those people he showed in that one video are cheering for their enslavement.

They cheered the government's response to this tragedy as if the government's actions were completely justifiable. As if being forced out of your home at gunpoint is necessary. As if being forced to strip naked in the middle of the street and walk past the media to the patrol car was wholly on point. As if, having military personnel and their military equipment roaming up and down the streets and blocking all access to and from the city is within the mandate of the constitution.

I regret to say this but there is NOTHING agreeable with what Substance is saying or implying. He doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about. Do some research Sufi. You will quickly change your tune once you've read and seen what I'm talking about.

Let's see. The government and law enforcement never had warrants to check each and every house, they set curfews throughout the city, they confiscated weapons from civilians they never had a right to confiscate in the first place and generally imposed their will on the populace without regard to the constitution. All this for one person.They brought daily life and commerce to a grinding halt. If this isn't the very definition of martial law then I don't know what is. Substance has no clue as to what he's talking about and he and those people he showed in that one video are cheering for their enslavement.

They cheered the government's response to this tragedy as if the government's actions were completely justifiable. As if being forced out of your home at gunpoint is necessary. As if being forced to strip naked in the middle of the street and walk past the media to the patrol car was wholly on point. As if, having military personnel and their military equipment roaming up and down the streets and blocking all access to and from the city is within the mandate of the constitution.

I regret to say this but there is NOTHING agreeable with what Substance is saying or implying. He doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about. Do some research Sufi. You will quickly change your tune once you've read and seen what I'm talking about.

No ,I think it is you that doesn't know what he is talking about. This was a federal state of emergency and i'm sure the police and all other federal agents followed all the guidelines based on it. The president has the authority to to do that you know. You really need to stop acting like they all just took over the city and went door to door harassing people for the hell of it. The actions of the federal and local authorities were valid in this case. Now, all this martial law stuff you are talking about is just false period.

The civilian authorities didn't fail to function and they maintained order and security in the city. There was no extension of military law on civilians. Some people were even asked to voluntarily take shelter and for very good reasons. All this and the other stuff is just all part of the interagency task force responses that were put in place after the sep 11 attacks. So please stop acting like they just imposed their will just for the hell of it. This was not martial law. No one arrests were made for defying the "suggestion" to stay indoors. It was prudent advice.

Let's see. The government and law enforcement never had warrants to check each and every house, they set curfews throughout the city, they confiscated weapons from civilians they never had a right to confiscate in the first place and generally imposed their will on the populace without regard to the constitution. All this for one person. They brought daily life and commerce to a grinding halt. If this isn't the very definition of martial law then I don't know what is. Substance has no clue as to what he's talking about and he and those people he showed in that one video are cheering for their enslavement.

They cheered the government's response to this tragedy as if the government's actions were completely justifiable. As if being forced out of your home at gunpoint is necessary. As if being forced to strip naked in the middle of the street and walk past the media to the patrol car was wholly on point. As if, having military personnel and their military equipment roaming up and down the streets and blocking all access to and from the city is within the mandate of the constitution.

I regret to say this but there is NOTHING agreeable with what Substance is saying or implying. He doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about. Do some research Sufi. You will quickly change your tune once you've read and seen what I'm talking about.

Ok I'm doing some research now. You tell me where it is wrong.

State of Emergency

A state of emergency is a governmental declaration which usually suspends a few normal functions of the executive, legislative and judicial powers, alert citizens to change their normal behaviors, or order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans. It can also be used as a rationale for suspending rights and freedoms, even if guaranteed under the constitution. Such declarations usually come during a time of natural or man made disaster, during periods of civil unrest, or following a declaration of war or situation of international or internal armed conflict. Justitium is its equivalent in Roman law.In some countries, the state of emergency and its effects on human rights and freedoms and governmental procedure are regulated by the constitution and/or a law that limits the powers that may be invoked. Rights and freedoms may be suspended during an emergency, for instance, freedom of movement, but not non-derogable rights.[1] In many countries it is illegal to modify the emergency law or the constitution during the emergency.

- Wikipedia

So how is that not a state of emergency and where did they take people's clothes off, put them at gunpoint, and confiscate weapons?

The only reason I'm having difficulty going with what you're saying is because I don't feel that the govt. is out to get me or anyone else. I know when they do, they do but it's not at a large scale and it's not without a cause. I mean, it ain't like what happens in the Middle East/Africa/South America.

I do think that the law enforcement in this country can get harsh at times but looking at the criminals and what they can do and have done in the past, it's difficult to argue.

I have to agree with what the federal (if they were involved), state/local governments did in that instance. The more people out and about, the better the odds were that either someone else would get killed by either the terrorists or friendly fire, and also the better the odds were that the terrorists would slip away. It makes way too much sense to tell everyone to stay home and off the streets because it could potentially save lives and also makes it MUCH more difficult for the terrorists to move freely.

I have to agree with what the federal (if they were involved), state/local governments did in that instance. The more people out and about, the better the odds were that either someone else would get killed by either the terrorists or friendly fire, and also the better the odds were that the terrorists would slip away. It makes way too much sense to tell everyone to stay home and off the streets because it could potentially save lives and also makes it MUCH more difficult for the terrorists to move freely.

A state of emergency is a governmental declaration which usually suspends a few normal functions of the executive, legislative and judicial powers, alert citizens to change their normal behaviors, or order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans. It can also be used as a rationale for suspending rights and freedoms, even if guaranteed under the constitution. Such declarations usually come during a time of natural or man made disaster, during periods of civil unrest, or following a declaration of war or situation of international or internal armed conflict. Justitium is its equivalent in Roman law.In some countries, the state of emergency and its effects on human rights and freedoms and governmental procedure are regulated by the constitution and/or a law that limits the powers that may be invoked. Rights and freedoms may be suspended during an emergency, for instance, freedom of movement, but not non-derogable rights.[1] In many countries it is illegal to modify the emergency law or the constitution during the emergency.

- Wikipedia

So how is that not a state of emergency and where did they take people's clothes off, put them at gunpoint, and confiscate weapons?

The only reason I'm having difficulty going with what you're saying is because I don't feel that the govt. is out to get me or anyone else. I know when they do, they do but it's not at a large scale and it's not without a cause. I mean, it ain't like what happens in the Middle East/Africa/South America.

I do think that the law enforcement in this country can get harsh at times but looking at the criminals and what they can do and have done in the past, it's difficult to argue.

Where it goes wrong is pretty much everything. There was no civil unrest. It was a couple people who bombed the marathon. It did not affect the whole city. The whole city or a significant portion of the city did NOT revolt or riot. It was not a terrorist act because there was no formal declaration of war against any particular parties through the congress and so the reasoning being because of war is also irrelevant. It was not a man made or natural disaster because the classification for disaster also brings about much more economic and infrastructure damage resulting in far more casualties in regards to deaths. We're not in internal or international conflict. The conflict we're in is extra-national i.e. the people we're supposedly fighting do not belong to any particular state exclusively. A "state of emergency" to the scale that was done in Boston was by its very definition, martial law.

Martial Law:

Temporary rule of a designated area by military authorities in time of emergency when the civil authorities are deemed unable to function. Under martial law, civil rights are usually suspended, and the activities of civil courts are restricted or supplanted entirely by military tribunals. Such “acts done by necessity” are limited only by international law and the conventions of civilized warfare. Though temporary in theory, a state of martial law may in fact continue indefinitely. See alsohuman rights; war crimes.

Now. I already posted several pieces of evidence showing the military presence and rule within the city of Boston.

Honestly I can't tell the difference between the two, except that Martial Law is more powerful and can stay longer.

Let's say if it was Martial Law, well if it's not there now, what's the problem? I'm trying to understand the threat here because I don't feel any.

Didn't they do the same when the beltway sniper was on the loose?

They do have similarities but it wasn't martial law. When civilian authorities fail to maintain order and can't do for themselves a military rule takes over. That's martial law in a nutshell. In no time did the feds or local police lose control of the situation. The military(national guard) was there because it's their job to support local and federal authorities in when a state of emergency is declared. They were there to support hurricane Katrina and Sandy too when they were declared state of emergencies. They were only there to support. I don't know where Morganator is getting this military rule from because the military wasn't in charge. He is drinking too much of the Ron Paul kool-aid.....lol

U.S. President Barack Obama signed an emergency declaration for Massachusetts on Wednesday and ordered federal aid to supplement the local response to the twin bombings that killed three and wounded more than 170 at the Boston Marathon two days earlier.http://www.crownheights.com/obama-de...s-federal-aid/

Posting Permissions

PlayStation Universe

Copyright 2006-2014 7578768 Canada Inc. All Right Reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written
permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.Use of this site is governed
by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.